RE: Nietzsche vs Christianity: Are Christians Nihilists? (The Meaning of Life Series, #5)
Have you read Nassim Taleb? An antifragile system must be composed of fragile components... and smaller systems are nested as components in larger systems. Interesting enough, most fans of Nietzsche I know are religious -- religious existentialists -- like Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, Shestov, and Gabriel Marcel.
Nietzsche believed in eternal reoccurrence, the idea that with infinite time and a finite number of events, events will recur again and again infinitely. His beliefs aligned well with the concept of samsara and cyclical history of the universe in Hinduism and Buddhism. The Christian existentialists interpreted this as faith: the highest passion to make the same choice over and over again, even if you have to live infinite life times. This faith is identical to amor fati. One who eliminates living in "bad faith" as defined by Sartre, can be considered a Buddha. Sartre also considered himself to be an atheist, yet the same themes are found in Dante's Divine Comedy.
When Nietzsche said that "God is dead", he didn't think that was a good thing. He simply interpreted as part of the cycle of history that all value systems must die eventually, and that a new value system will arise after its inevitable fall. Spengler's Decline of the West described such lifespans of civilization spheres following Nietzsche's thoughts. Nihilism is in the context of cultural sentiments of the era it occurs in. The lack of value, as with any other value, is impermanent.
Nietzsche's ideas, as with most existentialists, are basically identical with Vajrayana Buddhism. He's nothing like the modern "New Atheists." At this point, even the word "religion" is incredibly ambiguous and lack much practical utility. It's only useful for these who believes in a literal sky daddy, and these who get their panties in a bunch to actively oppose the imaginary sky daddy because they are rich and bored. Everyone else is in the middle and are fluid depending on the circumstances.
Not yet. Had him in my wish list for ages tho, and lately he's been cropping up in conversations recommending him.
Dostoevsky came before Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a fan. Kierkegaard also came before Nietzsche, Nietzsche was aware of him I think, but I don't think he ever read him.
Well Nietzsche's early idol was Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer was an avowed believer in many core Buddhist concepts, and one of the first to popularize Buddhism in Europe. But when Nietzsche broke with his intellectual mentor (as he did with all his idols), he rejected Buddhism I believe on the same grounds as Christianity: i.e. he accused it of being nihilistic.
Yeah Nietzsche wasn't as "rationalist" or as "absolutist" as they. Or maybe I should say "we". 😄 I am one of those people who think religion causes a lot of harm in the world. At any rate, if the claim that the literal sky-daddy doesn't exist wasn't controversial, it wouldn't be so vehemently opposed and reacted to whenever it's made.
I'm aware of the history. I over-condensed my sentence there. I didn't mean that they were fans of Nietzsche, but their religious fans tend to also be fans of Nietzsche.
Even in Nietzsche's time, people in Europe did not understand all the views in Eastern thought. Vajrayana and Zen rejected the views that influenced Schopenhauer and what Nietzsche interpreted as Buddhism. It's like how the Existentialists had many disagreements among each other. There were Buddhist schools that had ideas that were basically identical to Nietzsche and Heiddegger, but there are others that had completely different views.
See this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/4tjgqz/what_are_your_thoughts_on_existentialism/#bottom-comments
There is also this book, Nietzsche and Zen: http://amzn.to/2uMJSaj
I'm more pessimistic... even if you get rid of religion, people will still refuse to think and come up with other excuses for their negative actions. I think rationalism is impossible. We are all ultimately just rationalizers.
My knowledge of Buddhism is restricted to Theravada Buddhism, because that's what I decided through my research was the most original form of Buddhism and the closest one to the real historical Buddha, so I didn't bother with other schools: that could easily take up a lifetime!
So I've no idea about the other schools of thought, but regarding the Buddhism I know, I am of the opinion that it's indeed antithetical to life: the states that must be attained in Nirvana are impossible for living things, you literally have to be dead to attain them.
The book looks good, I've added it to my wish list!
The thread is long! I only read the first comment, that kinda reads like you! It's certainly interesting, makes you want to drop everything else and embark on that same journey. It reminds me of what it's like reading Buddhist sutras - the rhyming, the repetitions - they are a meditation unto themselves. I don't think I've ever read anything that made me feel calmer than the Buddhist sutras.
Yeah I worry too that might be the case.
I see. I'm also largely opposed to Theravada. I've read of a few Zen scholars who wrote excellent critiques against Theravada... and it makes sense, since Zen is really a combination of Taoism and Buddhism. Most people would consider it a form of Buddhism, but I would actually consider it to be more like Taoism with a lot of the superstitions striped off (and sometimes replaced with other superstitions). Vajrayana goes even further than Zen. Zen can be quite minimalist, austere, and militaristic, but Vajrayana is like a complete celebration of the colors of life. There are some schools of thought that are almost like a combination of Heidegger and Terence McKenna. People can craft their own ways of thinking and living in a lot of creative ways.
This is the view I take and It's also pretty much the same as the existentialism/radical empiricism of Lev Shestov: https://approachingaro.org/no-holiness-vastness
Are you threatening me!? My bungole will not wait!